Gilbert leaders split on role of government

As Gilbert residents gather at Town Hall on Saturday for perhaps the nation's largest celebration of the U.S. Constitution, an ongoing Town Council debate over the proper role of government has brought into focus varying ideologies on how the town should be run.

Council members' ideological differences have resulted in several split votes in recent months and have played a role in the group's decision-making process related to non-profit support and accepting federal grants.

In general, council members are united in their desire to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of our community," Mayor John Lewis said.

Although core municipal services, such as public safety, water delivery and trash collection, are common points of agreement on the council, the conversation has waxed more philosophical when it comes to funding other government programs, such as charitable grants.

For many years, Gilbert has dedicated a small portion of general-fund money, less than 1 percent of the budget, to support local charities in their efforts to prevent homelessness, feed the hungry and run youth programs.

According to Councilman Victor Petersen, who has the support of a few other council members, those non-profit grants are a primary example of government overstepping its mission.

"Tax dollars should never go to charity," Petersen said. "That is the most obvious example of 'legal theft.' "

In February, after an unusually contentious debate that one councilman described as "painful" and "disturbing," the council voted, 4-3, to gradually reduce non-profit funding over the next few years, with zero funding as the ultimate goal.

The shift in council policy puts funding for programs at the Boys & Girls Clubs of the East Valley and the Gilbert Senior Center at risk. Both organizations have received substantial town aid.

The Boys & Girls Clubs Gilbert branch has historically used about $125,000 in town grant funding for its Project Learn program, which aims to help hundreds of children from low-income families succeed in school.

In conjunction with the non-profit funding cuts, the council is working to launch a town-affiliated foundation that would attempt to raise enough private donations to replace the money no longer offered in the form of town grants.

That sort of private giving is more appropriate than government assistance, Petersen has said. The role of government is to protect individual rights, taking private property for public use only when just compensation is given to the property owner, he said.

Petersen said he derives his definition of the proper role of government from the U.S. Constitution and leaders such as Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln.

But not everyone shares that interpretation, and the role of government at the local level is very much up for debate, other council members say.

"At the local level, it could be defined in multiple ways," Councilwoman Jenn Daniels said. "Our power comes from the state Constitution. It doesn't specifically spell out what you can and can't do as a local government."

Some public officials seem to "pick and choose" when and where to apply their understanding of government's role, and the decisions can often seem arbitrary, Daniels said.

"I think there probably needs to be a more clear definition from those who choose to use the words 'proper role of government,' " Daniels said. "I think it's an overused phrase."

While the gradual draw-down of non-profit funding may have been the Gilbert council's most prominent debate on the role of government, ideologies also have come into play as the council considers federal-grant opportunities.

This month, for example, the council was set to approve an application for a federal grant to fund environmentally-friendly transportation improvements, but Petersen objected on philosophical grounds.

It would be improper for the town to seek more money from a federal government that is broke, he argued. Petersen was joined by Cook and Ray in opposing the grant.

Daniels, however, defended the grant and said the funding would help Gilbert meet a federal mandate related to clean-air standards. With the support of Lewis, Councilman Ben Cooper and Vice Mayor John Sentz, the motion was approved, 4-3.

Public-safety services, on the other hand, typically win support from the entire council as a top priority.

"If funding were an issue, the priorities in order would be public safety, public works and then 'other,' " Lewis said.

Parks and recreation programs enhance quality of life and economic development remains a major focus, Lewis said.

Petersen said the justice system is the "most important funding priority" and said police and courts must be funded before anything else. Cook has also repeatedly stated that public-safety should be funded first.

Splitting the vote

Ideological differences on the Gilbert Town Council have led to several split votes in recent months, including the following:

Air-quality program federal grant

Date: Sept. 6.

The issue: Town officials were asking permission to apply for a federal grant to fund environmentally-friendly transportation programs. The money would be used for street sweeping, bike and pedestrian improvements and paving.

The debate: Councilman Victor Petersen argued that Gilbert should not seek money from a federal government that is "broke." Councilwoman Jenn Daniels said the money would help the town fulfill a federal mandate for air-quality standards.

The outcome: Approved, 4-3.

Solar-energy project

Date: Aug. 2.

The issue: A Valley solar company wanted to put solar panels and power-saving equipment on 1,150 town streetlights. The town and the company would then split the money saved by the reduced energy use.

The debate: Petersen expressed opposition to photovoltaic solar power subsidized by government incentives, while Councilman Jordan Ray had concerns related to the contract. On the other hand, Councilman Ben Cooper said the proposal had the support of "the people" and Vice Mayor John Sentz said the town needed to be "a leader" in technology.

The outcome: Failed, 4-3.

Fire-personnel federal grant

Date: March 8.

The issue: Town officials wanted to apply for a federal grant to hire 12 firefighters. The funding request came as the town was building a fire station near Guadalupe and McQueen roads.

The debate: Councilman Eddie Cook said the town should use its own budget to pay for public-safety services rather than seek federal support, while Petersen said the town should not rely on one-time grants for ongoing expenses, such as staffing, and urged the town to be frugal. Others argued that the grant funding would be a proactive and appropriate way to advance public-safety efforts.

The outcome: Approved, 4-3.

Non-profit funding

Date: Feb. 23.

The issue: For months, the council discussed various options to reduce town-funded grants for charities. In February, the group proposed a compromise. Rather than implement immediate cuts, the town would instead gradually reduce the grant funding during the next five years, with an ultimate goal of zero funding.

The debate: Petersen and Cook have been outspoken opponents of most non-profit grants, with Petersen going as far as calling it "legal theft." Meanwhile, Sentz and Cooper have been more supportive, saying it's about community investment and the "right thing to do."